We need to move to a single-payer National Health Care system. It would be more efficient.

Presumably he's joking. I don't think he's that stupid.

I hope he's joking, because calling it efficient is literally the last word you could justify using to describe it.

Its inefficiency is one of the, if not the, chief reasons it produces such garbage levels of care.

The American system would be better if there were a single layer trying to make a profit or at most two:
Pharmaceuticals
Healthcare providers
Instead you have at least one additional layer,
Insurance providers
And arguably a fourth
Legal providers

Ultimately this leads to gross inefficiency and higher charges to the end user.

No, a NHS would be more efficient due to economies of scale. Likewise, most disadvantages of NHS are exaggerations or fabricated lies invented by those who stand to lose from it.

Flint,

My political motto is autocracy, liberty, and efficient government. Imagine an autocrat so powerful he has no need to be sensitive to the private interests of anyone. When he legislates, the apparatus of the state imposes his will without interruption from resisting parties. Bound by social contract, he invests in public goods that encourage the development of his state. When appointing officials to public office, it is a reward of merit rather than friendship, and he enforces meritocracy among those below him. He can afford to reward merit because he is supreme, and therefore has no one to fear or anyone to please. He also invests in public goods that manifest the equality of opportunity to ensure that human resources are efficiently allocated in the public and private sector. There is freedom of speech, because he understands that communication inspires innovation and transparency, and both improve the efficiency of his state by sniffing out corruption, the enemy to the efficient flow of service. There is the rule of law and due process, because he understands they are also essential to prevent corruption and abuse. All in all, he wants to deliver the best service to his people, and being dedicated to the efficient flow of public service secures his political monopoly.

Unfortunately, most autocrats lack the means to do this because their power depends on a political coalition with its own interests. Those who largely accomplished what I described were generally celebrated military leaders, who commanded the absolute loyalty of the military due to their shared experience on the battlefield.

I listen to actual Nobel laureates like economists such as Paul Krugman not voodoo economists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNoNhiOYkAY&feature=relmfu , check 16:30.

Data:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/healthcare-spending-countries_n_1388306.html#s825346&title=1_United_States

Of the countries that invest the most in health care, the US spends the most on health care and has the lowest life expectancy. Worse, the US spends $2,608 more per capita than Norway, the second biggest spender. Health Care also accounts for 17.4% of the US GDP, whereas it is 12% for the Netherlands. That is a 5.4% difference. Since Europeans are spending less and have a higher life expectancy than the US, how, exactly, is a NHS not more efficient? Obviously, we spend the most and have the lowest return on investment = inefficient.

But you acknowledge that NHS is better than what we have now?

Flint,

If people so easily die from NHS, then why do so many countries with a NHS have a longer life expectancy?

> Justinian I wrote:

> Flint,

If people so easily die from NHS, then why do so many countries with a NHS have a longer life expectancy?

Has something to do with the metric system, just like how you guys have more kilometers then we have miles

Oh sorry I missed that question.

Beowolfe is sorta correct

1) We treat any baby breathing at birth to be liveborn, others treat a baby that survives 5 days to be liveborn (this is how the Netherlands gets their rosy number)

Also the premature birth issue... the United States routinely attempts to save premature babies, which we do remarkably well on, but some nations have hard barriers on gestation age before they will try (good example, a woman with two babies, one 6 months, one two months, a problem is detected in the two months baby and is surgically corrected and placed back in... the United States can, and regularly does do these sort of things, others don't. Btw both babies made it)

Some nations even record premature babies that die as miscarriages. Differing standards there, but...

2) "Value of life"
Some of the metrics toss in a Socialist tilted "value of life" which is a modifier to the final result. Aka the median is 80 but the value of life modifer (example) can make it 85.

This comes out in some of the hard tilt leftist versions and is very misleading.

3) Some nations have very few military deaths
While statistically speaking our death rate in the area is very low it does nudge numbers due to lower age level of the military.

4) Regional Differences
Hot regions affect differently than cold, dry versus wet, and generally speaking the different groups in Europe are 'prepared' for their weather while the larger melting pot of America is not.

5) Food Differences
Cow versus fish explains US vs Japan, Wheat versus Rice, Oranges versus Mangos... the list goes on. Fact is we have more sugars in our foods as well thanks to the huge sugars subsidy.

6) Infranstructure
We have far more cars here than Europe does and less training for new drivers to boot. More miles of roads by far as well and longer commutes (driving wise). This means more accidents young and old.

When you change just the live birth issue the United States actually shoots up to #2 in the world, when you account for other issues it actually shows we are more free and live older if we don't die an unnatural death than all others.

Statistically there is 10k deaths a day so ironically 9-11 was a major impact as well. The median age that day must have been mid thirties to low fourties.

Interesting thing to look up: Still born and miscarriage rates of each nation. Btw some nations don't record miscarriage rates

*snaps picture of Kemp agreeing*